The Virginian

Saturday, February 28, 2015

A strong majority of U.S. voters want Congress to continue to pass legislation the president opposes, like for construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, a clear sign that they now see Washington's power shifting to the GOP-controlled Capitol Hill.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll issued Friday found that 59 percent of voters "think Congress should continue to pass legislation that most members of Congress support even if the president is opposed."

Just 25 percent want Congress to cave into the White House and 16 percent are unsure.

Among the people who demand Congress cave are all the members of the media, including Charles Krauthammer and George Will. Both spend much too much time inside the beltway and believe that what they read in the media is a reflection of what the American people believe.

Good News, Beheaded Christians!

Friday, February 27, 2015

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

Ron Fornier reporting from New Hampshire

A crowd is huddled inside the Lawrence Barn Community Center in Hollis. Men wear flannel shirts and work coats to keep off the creeping November chill. Women in fleece pullovers or parkas dislodged from the closet for the first time since March rub their hands together for warmth.

The warmest person in the building is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who works the room after speaking under the TV lights for 30 minutes and taking citizens’ questions for 20 more.

Ron Fournier — distinct in his fashionable black jacket, pressed jeans and once shiny dress shoes now caked with New Hampshire mud — approaches a woman who clutches a Sharpie and a copy of Walker's book: "Unintimidated".

“Excuse me, do you mind if I ask what you thought of the governor's speech?”

Woman: “I thought it was great. I liked how he related to average people, you know? I don’t hear a lot of candidates talking about how to make it easier for low-income families to succeed in America.”

Ron Fournier: “It didn’t bother you that his second cousin once removed said Tom Brady wears ladies underwear?

Woman: “Who said that?”

Ron Fournier: “Walkers second cousin once removed. He said it at a Milwaukee fund-raiser three weeks ago. Thus far, Walker has failed to disown his cousin, denounce the comment, or apologize to Tom Brady for it.

The IRS’s inspector general confirmed Thursday it is conducting a criminal investigation into how Lois G. Lerner’s emails disappeared, saying it took only two weeks for investigators to find hundreds of tapes the agency’s chief had told Congress were irretrievably destroyed.

Koskinen refused to apologize to angry Republicans who don’t buy the IRS explanation that a 2011 computer crash may have permanently erased emails from Lois Lerner, the former head of the IRS office accused of improperly holding up applications by conservative groups seeking tax exempt status.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Someone tell Team Obama that terrorism is not caused by poverty and lack of jobs.

The true identity of the ISIS terrorist known as "Jihadi John," who has appeared in several videos showing the beheading of hostages, reportedly has been revealed.

The Washington Post first reported Thursday, citing friends and human rights workers familiar with the case, that the man's real name is Mohammed Emwazi, a west London man who had been detained by counterterror officials in Britain at least once, in 2010. The paper also reported that Emwazi was born in Kuwait, is from a well-to-do family, graduated from college with a degree in computer programming and is thought to have traveled to Syria sometime in or around 2012.

A poll released Wednesday at a Washington Post blog site buries the news that a majority of Democrats do not believe Obama is a Christian. Instead the article focuses on a slim majority of Republicans (fifty-four percent) thinking Obama is a Muslim. At this point in his presidency, Republicans thinking Obama is a closet Muslim is not news.What is news is that Obama’s fellow Democrats think he is lying about being a Christian.According to the poll conducted last fall and released Wednesday, only forty-five percent of Democrats believe Obama is a Christian at heart. Twenty-six percent don’t know what Obama believes, seventeen percent think Obama is “spiritual” while ten percent think Obama is a Muslim. Two percent say Obama is an atheist.Only nine percent of Republicans and sixteen percent of independents believe Obama is a Christian.The poll asked respondents:“Which of these do you think most likely describes what Obama believes deep down? Muslim, Christian, atheist, spiritual, or I don’t know.”The Post credit the author of the article and poll reads:“Alex Theodoridis is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Merced.“Note: The survey was conducted as part of the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. The CCES was conducted by the survey firm YouGov in two waves in October and November of 2014. The sampling frame was American adults and the sample size for this particular question about Obama’s religion was 1,000. Respondents were interviewed on-line. Further information about the YouGov sampling methodology is here, here, and here.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Morning Joe discussing the Rudy flap, Mika Brzezinski said: “I question the patriotism of someone who questions the president’s patriotism.” Joe Scarborough retorted that for years on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann got away with saying much worse about W without criticism from Mika or others in the MSM.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that"

We are reminded of that famous line from Seinfeld which occurred during an episode that included a reference to homosexuality.

Why do the media demand that everyone acknowledge that Obama is a flag waving Jesus Freak? Exactly what does the press find evil about being a Muslim?

Bud Norman poses the question this way:

Polls were trotted out showing that a sizable minority of the American public suspects the president is secretly Muslim, much tsk-taking was done about how right-wing media had so slyly perpetuated such a slanderous slur, although there’s certainly nothing wrong with the president being Muslim, which is after all a Religion of Peace and part of the fabric of American history, as the president has often pointed out, and the clear implication was made that those Republicans have gone mad with their disrespect of both the presidency and the United States of America for which it stands.....

The president has written about his conversion to Christianity through a preacher who once thundered “God damn America” from the pulpit, he told The New York Times about how the Muslim call to prayer was one of the “most beautiful sounds” he has heard, he frequently extols the greatness of Islam and his most notable recent reference to Christianity was a warning that it should not “get on a high horse” because of long-ago episodes as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and he told the United Nations that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam,” none of which are the kinds of things that Christians usually say. The policies that have followed from such inclinations have resulted in the spread of radical Islam throughout much of the Middle East, leaving all sorts of nastiness in its wake and encouraging the continued terroristic attacks on the west, and the best efforts of the press can not erase all possible doubt about the reasons.

Which is not to say that we question the president’s love of country or abiding Christian faith. He might well love America so much that he wants to turn it into Europe, and have arrived at some revolutionary understanding of Christianity that acknowledges Mohammad as the true prophet who must not be slandered with any doubts about his prophecy, and in any case he seems alarmingly confident that he’s doing what’s best for the country and the entire world. Most liberals we know pride themselves on their less-than-fulsome assessment of America, an anecdotal observationborne out by polling data, but they consider this a patriotic chore they must perform lest America become too proud of itself. At this late date in a lame duck presidency we’re more concerned about the results, which we and a number of soon-to-be-beheaded Christians find displeasing, and we’re willing to forgive any Republican contenders who are insufficiently effusive about the president’s pureness of heart.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Ron Fournier is a charlatan who pretends to be a neutral observer, but is instead a Democrat partisan hack. He thinks it's beneath contempt for Giuliani to question Obama's patriotism. But Fournier has no problem telling us that Republicans are unpatriotic for opposing - and continuing to oppose - ObamaCare.

And I would say not “almost” rooting for failure. There are many Republicans rooting for failure and I frankly find that unpatriotic. The law’s been passed. We should all be doing what we can to make it work.

Rick Nolte:

... unlike Giuliani, Fournier isn’t questioning the patriotism of The World’s Most Powerful Man, a man with legions of political and media supporters to rush to his defense. No, Fournier questions the patriotism of ObamaCare opponents.

Captain Integrity’s principles on this issue are now pretty clear. There is a pattern. According to Fournier, fighting against The State (ObamaCare) and criticizing The Leader of the State (Obama) are the only true acts that reach the level of unpatriotic.

Beyond the “unpatriotic” hypocrisy, Fournier’s chilling belief that we must all get in line to make a law like ObamaCare work is almost beyond comprehension. To paraphrase “The Princess Bride,” I’m not sure the word patriotism means what Ron Fournier thinks it means.

The media is currently on a full-bore witch hunt to root out and politically batter those in the GOP who refuse to vouch for Obama as a flag-waving Jesus freak.

For verbalizing his throughtcrime in a private setting, Giuliani was outed by the media (Obama’s Palace Guards at Politico) last week, locked in the public stocks of 24/7 news coverage, and brutalized like a baby seal.

There are no real class divisions in America except one: the college-educated versus the non-college educated. It helps to think of this in terms borrowed from the world of a Jane Austen novel: graduating from college is what makes you a “gentleman.” (A degree from an Ivy League school makes you part of the aristocracy.) It qualifies you to marry the right people and hold the right kind of positions. It makes you respectable. And even if you don’t achieve much in the world of work and business, even if you’re still working as a barista ten years later, you still retain that special status. It’s a modern form of “genteel poverty,” which is considered superior to the regular kind of poverty.

If you don’t have a college degree, by contrast, you are looked down upon as a vulgar commoner who is presumptuously attempting to rise above his station. Which is pretty much what they’re saying about Scott Walker. This prejudice is particularly strong when applied to anyone from the right, whose retrograde views are easily attributed to his lack of attendance at the gentleman’s finishing school that is the university.

That brings us to the heart of the matter. I have observed before that left-leaning politics has become “part of the cultural class identity of college-educated people,” a prejudice that lingers long after they have graduated. You can see how this goes the other way, too. If to be college-educated is to have left-leaning views—then to have the “correct” political values, one must be college-educated.

You can see now what is fueling the reaction on the left. If Scott Walker can run for president, he is challenging the basic cultural class identity of the mainstream left. He is more than a threat to the Democrats’ hold on political power. He is a threat to the existing social order.

Al Sharpton is a shakedown artist. Pay him ... or face a his racist "rent a mob."

According to the lawsuit, Comcast and TWC "collectively spend approximately $25 billion annually for the licensing of pay-television channels and advertising of their products and services, yet 100% African American–owned media receives less than $3 million per year."

At the time of Comcast's 2010 acquisition of NBCUniversal, Comcast entered into memoranda of understanding with the NAACP, the National Urban League and the National Action Network, but the lawsuit says the voluntary diversity agreements are "a sham, undertaken to whitewash Comcast's discriminatory business practices."

The plaintiff objects that the only fully black-owned channel picked up by Comcast is the Africa Channel, and that entity is owned by former Comcast/NBCU exec Paula Madison, who "was directly involved in putting together the sham MOUs and obtaining government approval for the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal, thus creating a serious conflict of interest."

Other black channels are said to be "window dressing," with black celebrities as "fronts" when they are "white-owned businesses" that are run by friends or family of Comcast executives.

The lawsuit goes on to say that Comcast made large cash "donations" to obtain support for its acquisition. The money includes $3.8 million to Sharpton and his National Action Network. The money, it's charged, was meant to pay Sharpton to endorse the NBCU deal and divert attention away from discrimination. As for Sharpton's MSNBC gig, the complaint says, "Despite the notoriously low ratings that Sharpton's show generates, Comcast has allowed Sharpton to maintain his hosting position for more than three years in exchange for Sharpton's continued public support for Comcast on issues of diversity."

Monday, February 23, 2015

ISIS Jobs

Sunday, February 22, 2015

1. Should Joe Biden stop touching women without consent?2. Is Elizabeth Warren Native American?3. Is it okay that Bill Clinton participated in [sex/orgy] vacations with a pedophile?What are the chances these will be asked?

Saturday, February 21, 2015

What I find infuriating about the way Bush handled Iraq

The problem with the Bush philosophy regarding a conquered Iraq is that he wanted to believe that it would be possible to transform this little part of the Middle East into a democracy in a few years.

This was wrong and it led to unnecessary bloodshed and inevitably to the Obama disaster of total disengagement. Leading to ISIS.

For some reason I believed that Bush was a realist and would see that it would take decades of American control and education. Just as it took a long time to transform Japan and Germany, countries that were hundreds of years ahead of the Middle East in terms of cultural development.

And their [ISIS] weakness is that unlike al Qaeda ISIS cannot fade into invisibility: you are not Caliph if you do not have territory in which to impose Islamic law, including slavery, beheadings, and cutting off hands. If you do not impose these things you are not, according to the Caliphate Muslims, a Muslim, and can and indeed must be corrected or deposed. So it goes.

Which means, just now, that a division of US regulars and all the warthogs, with some Marine air, and USAF anti-missile air superiority planes, could in a year destroy the Caliphate. We give North Iraq to the Kurds. Central Iraq to whomever we select among the factions. Syria – not clear, but possibly to the dictatorship, with what conditions we choose to impose. It doesn’t matter because it’s fantasy: Obama will do no such thing. But we could do it if we had a President.

Don't go to war with the President we have

There were news reports yesterday that there was going to be an attack by American, Iraqi and Kurdish forces on ISIS in Mosul. The attack is scheduled for a month or two or three from now: April, May or possibly later.

Please don't.

This is a disaster waiting to happen. Forget the reasons given for telegraphing our intentions months ahead of time. They make no logical sense.

What will happen is that the ISIS forces will have months to prepare, to reinforce, to dig in, to booby trap ... in other words to create a killing field. And it will get quite a few Iranians, Kurds and Americans killed.

You can be sure that the hard core of the attack will be American troops, probably Marines.

In small numbers without heavy equipment.

Mosul has a population of over a million civilians. Fighting will be house-to-house.

There will be rules of engagement that will get more of our troops killed .... or prosecuted for war crimes. Take your pick.

Small enough to insure defeat, big enough to create a media meme. Like Tet, which was a military disaster for the North Vietnamese. But transformed by the media into an American military disaster, proof that we were losing.

It can have the effect of destroying American military morale as Viet Nam did.

The Left will say that Conservatives are demanding a forceful military response. Some are. People like John McCain - a Republican but not a conservative - have been demanding all kinds of very forceful military action.

But count me among a growing number of people who are not. "Be careful what you wish for" is wise advice. We knuckle dragging Neanderthals have seen how well Obama has handled Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan. He reset our relations with Russia so well that Putin is swallowing Ukraine and there is now talk of war in Europe.

His team dithered in a failed attempt to rescue hostages that missed by a few days; perhaps hours. Susan Rice - she who blamed a video for the Benghazi attack - claimed it wasn't Obama's fault. “It can’t happen any faster than that . . . particularly given the complexity of the risk”she claimed. Who are you gonna believe, known liar Susan Rice or the Pentagon spokesman who said it took a week from the time they sent a plan to the White House until the rescue attempt was made.

“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”

This is reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson's management of the war in Viet Nam, where he picked the bombing targets. That did not turn out well. Wars are not won by politicians, especially politicians taking half-measures. Compared to Obama, Johnson was W.T. Sherman who said "war is hell." For Obama, war is icky. The fastest way to end a war is to lose. The president who doesn't "love America" (he may not even like America) could lose us another war.

No thanks. No Mosul attack with Commander in Chief Obama in charge. Let's pretend to do something but never really do it. Let General Obama drone on. Set up Facebook sites calling random terrorists bad names, without naming their religious affiliation.

If Obama starts feeling belligerent, unleash the hash-tags of war. Then pray.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

For those wondering how the leftwing media negotiates the common conflict between acceptable narratives and some semblance of the factual truth, the Washington Post offered a tutorial yesterday in its coverage of a multiple stabbing that took place last weekend in Detroit.
What seems to have happened (police are investigating) is that Terrence Lavaron Thomas, a Muslim, asked strangers at a Southfield, Mich., bus stop whether or not they were Muslim, also. Two of them said that they were not.
Thomas proceeded to stab the pair with a three-inch folding knife. But here was the Post’s initial headline:

Some loon out hunting Muslims, obviously – right? It is not until the third paragraph that another possibility is even suggested. And the minor detail that he, himself, is Muslim? Paragraph seven. The Washington Post: where the only “correct” is politically correct.

A nutty professor who teaches city cops and firefighters how to cool down heated situations assaulted her ex-cop boyfriend because he allegedly cheated on her, police sources said.

Joann Baney, 54, who teaches International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, was arrested Valentine’s Day, at 10:45 p.m., after she slugged retired NYPD sergeant Walter Frey,46, while he was sleeping, according to a criminal court complaint.

What Islamic Terror?

GOP DOUBLE-CROSSING TRAITORS

Ann Coulter takes the wood to Republicans on amnesty.

Remember when?

Back when they needed our votes before the last election, Republicans were hairy-chested warriors, vowing to block Obama's unconstitutional "executive amnesty" -- if only voters gave them a Senate majority. The resulting Republican landslide suggested some opposition to amnesty.

Heading into the election, college professor Dave Brat took out the sitting House majority leader and amnesty supporter Eric Cantor in a primary, despite being outspent 40-1. It was the greatest upset in history since the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" at the Lake Placid Olympics: Never before has a House majority leader been defeated in a primary. And Brat did it by an astonishing 55.5 percent to 45.5 percent.

Again, the voters seemed to be expressing disquiet with amnesty.....;

Since at least 2006, voters have insistently told pollsters they don't want amnesty. Seemingly bulletproof Republican congressmen have lost their seats over amnesty. President Bush lost the entire House of Representatives over amnesty. What else do we have to do to convince you we don't want amnesty, Republicans? Make it a host on "The View"?

Now:

Republicans and George Will tell us they can't stand up to Obama's executive amnesty because the media are unfair.

Oh, well, in that case ... never mind.

This is news to them? They didn't know the media were unfair when they were promising to block Obama's illegal amnesty before the elections? The media have blamed the GOP for every failure of Republicans and Democrats to reach an agreement since the Hoover administration. This isn't a surprise development.

I have this Walter Mitty dream; I'm running for office and my campaign focuses on the media ... I would run against the media. My opponent would be the media which supports my opposition.

Why don't Republicans attack the media? People hate the media! Their power is eroding -- and it would erode a lot faster if Congress would challenge them. Instead of submitting to the media's blackmail, my suggestion is, take their gun away.

Tell voters what the media won't: that Obama's "amnesty" will give illegal aliens Social Security cards and three years of back-payments through the Earned Income Tax Credit, even though they never paid taxes in the first place.

Could we get a poll on that: Should the government issue work permits to illegal aliens and give them each $25,000 in U.S. taxpayer money? I promise you, Obama would lose that vote by at least 80-20. Even people vaguely supportive of not hounding illegal aliens out of the country didn't sign up to open the U.S. Treasury to them.

Tell voters that the media are refusing to report that, for the past two weeks, Senate Democrats have been filibustering a bill that would defund Obama's illegal amnesty.

Ann points out that if DHS isn't funded 200,000 out of 230,000 of its employees woudl still show up for work.

Are the Republicans deliberately throwing the fight?

Why don't Republicans spend all their airtime attacking the media for lying about what Obama's amnesty does and what the Democrats are doing? It's hard to avoid concluding that Republicans aren't trying to make the right arguments. In fact, it kind of looks like they're intentionally throwing the fight on amnesty.

If a Republican majority in both houses of Congress can't stop Obama from issuing illegal immigrants Social Security cards and years of back welfare payments, there is no reason to vote Republican ever again

Rush Limbaugh has stated that Republicans and their corporate backers are in favor of amnesty. That's absolutely right. But while GE's Jeff Immelt has money, he only has one vote. This could destroy the Republican party. If the Republicans in congress stab their voting base in the back they'll never win another election.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

The Middle East Is Red With The Blood Of Christians. “The beheading of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya by forces sympathetic to Islamic State over recent days is sadly not an isolated case. On the contrary, it is the latest of countless outrages perpetrated against Christians in or near the Church’s Biblical heartlands over many years.”

Who said that the object the media is to "educate and unite the masses."

When you hear someone use the term "masses" what kind of person springs to mind? Karl Marx and the people that followed him spoke of the people as "the masses." Another believer in "he masses" and the power of the media was a certain Mr. Hitler, who said

"The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses."

Liberal know this well. The success of Jon Stewart is testimony to the effect of simple minded ideas delivered with smirk, face-palms and a snark is testimony to his ideas being able to influencing an entire generation.

Another way of building a lie is to pass it along as a throw-away line on the way to making another point. Liberals in the media are excellent a this. Ron Fournier tossed on the accusation that Bush lied us into the Iraq war on the way to making another point and because the other point was the issue under discussion, no one called him on his lie.

I associate references to "the masses" as coming from people who think themselves better, brighter or wiser than the people they are describing. Those who view themselves as the ruling class. Mao Zedong and all other Communist dictators always referred to "the masses." To them, they are a herd to be moved in a certain direction, with all the individuality of a cow. The masses are never people with individual souls; with individual hopes, dreams and lives. That's also how Liberals view the people who are not like them.

So who said that the object of the media is to "educate and unite the masses?"
1. Adolph Hitler
2. Karl Marx
3. Mao Zedong
4. Ron Fornier
5. Jon Stewart
6. Fidel Castro

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Is ISIS worse than the Nazis?

Hitler felt obliged to be somewhat coy about just how final the final solution was. As Eichmann testified at his trial, when typing up the minutes of the Wannsee conference, "How shall I put it? Certain over-plain talk and jargon expressions had to be rendered into office language by me." Even the Nazis were reluctant to spell it out.

The Germans didn't have social media, but they had newsreels, and Hitler knew enough not to make genocide available to Pathé or "The March of Time". He had considerations both domestic and foreign. Pre-Wannsee, in Poland and elsewhere, German troops had been ordered to shoot Jewish prisoners in cold blood, and their commanders reported back to Berlin that too many soldiers had found it sickening and demoralizing. So the purpose of "the final solution" was to make mass murder painless, at least for the perpetrators - more bureaucratic, removed, bloodless.

As for foreign considerations, Germany expected to be treated as a civilized power by its enemies, and that would not have been possible had they been boasting about genocide.

Seventy years on, the Islamic State has slipped free of even these minimal constraints. They advertize their barbarism to the world, because what's the downside? Let's say the guys who burned Flt Lt al-Kasasbeh are one day captured by Americans. They can look forward to a decade or two of a soft, pampering sojourn in the US justice system, represented by an A-list dream-team that'll string things along until the administration figures it'll cut its losses and ship them to Qatar in exchange for some worthless deserter.

As for the upside, "the banality of evil" may have its appeal for lower-middle-class Teuton bureaucrats, but the glamor of evil is a far more potent and universal brand. The Islamic State has come up with the ultimate social-media campaign: evil goes viral! At some level German conscripts needed to believe they were honorable soldiers in an honorable cause, no different from the British or Americans. But ISIS volunteers are signing up explicitly for the war crimes. The Islamic State burned Flt Lt al-Kasasbeh alive not only to kill him but to inspire the thousands of ISIS fanbois around the globe, like Moussa Coulibaly, the guy who stabbed three French policemen outside a Jewish school in Nice this week.

Hitler spoke of a "final solution," a euphemism which could have meant the expulsion of the Jews from Europe rather than their murders. The Muslims of ISIS, Hezbolla - and other armed groups now conquering the Middle East and Africa are much more explicit: "Death to the Jews" they blare and death to the Great Satan (that's America for those who got their news from Brian Williams)

In a piece titled “Charge of the Bile Brigade,” the National Journal’s Ron Fournier, a Platinum Media Cardholder who wields superior sanctimony like a superpower, indicted all “Americans” for “flit[ting] from one controversy to the next with little context or objectivity.”

(Note: “Americans” is FournierSpeak for “Yahoos.”)

Probably because social media can’t greenback and greenroom Ron Fournier to come on television and explain why everything that happens in America is really all about Ron Fournier’s feelings, Ron Fournier singled out social media by name as a big part of the Bile Brigade.

(Note: “social media” is FournierSpeak for “The Little People.”)

Into each story charged the Bile Brigade. Rumors, falsehoods, and rushed judgments poured into the public square, overwhelming discerning Americans who still desire solid reporting and thoughtful opinions. I am part of the problem: As a political columnist and Twitter unkie [sp], I’m not always sure whether I’m adding to or subtracting from the debate.

Are vaccinations harmful? Can I get Ebola? Ask those questions on social media, and you’ll likely get mocked. …

Many people, myself included, thought social media would help people overcome their inhibition and create a more vibrant public discussion. …

Where does this leave us? First, we don’t trust the old media. Second, new media has made it easier for Americans to pull apart, and we’re no more likely to speak up. My hope is that as the new platforms evolve, the public will adapt and technology will be used as it has so many times in the past: To educate and unite the masses. This can’t happen fast enough. We’ve got a lot of stuff to do.

If I’m reading this correctly, Fournier is okay with everyone having a voice … just as long as he approves of that voice.

I must say, though, that Fournier’s desire “[t]o educate and unite the masses” puts a chill right down my freedom-is-messy loving spine.

White House Press Secretary and walking oxymoron Josh Earnest, earlier today: Just because that Islamic terrorist said he killed those people because they were Jews, and just because they were Jews, that doesn’t mean he killed them because they were Jews. Why, he didn’t even know their names!

Read the whole thing. This line of "reasoning" was even offered up on Fox News by some blond bimbette in the commentary section. You can't make this stuff up!

They think the American people are stupid. Can you blame them? After all, we elected them. Twice.

Remember the University of Virginia "Gang Rape at Frat House" story? Here's what really happened.

So, let’s recap the story:1) Jackie falls in crush with Randall.2) Randall LJBFs Jackie3) Jackie doesn’t understand that “no means no”4) Jackie invents an imaginary boyfriend “chem guy” , complete with fake photos and phone number5) Jackie boasts with chem guy in front of Randall to make him jealous. She even gives “chem guy’s phone number” to Randall, Andy and Cindy and, impersonating chem guy, insinuates to Randall that she loves him.6) Randall remains unimpressed.7) Jackie goes to date with chem guy.8) Few hours later Jackie gives Randall a “damsel in distress” call.9) Randall arrives and she hysterically tells him that chem guy lured her into a gang rape of clinton-levinsky variety.10) Instead of falling in love with her, Randall calls reinforcements: Andy and Cindy.11) They try to console her and convince her to go to police, but she refuses.12) After that night chem guy still sends texts to Randall singing praise to Jackie.13) Randall still doesn’t want to fall in love with Jackie.14) Jackie is heartbroken and gets depressed.15) Jackie finds out campus anti-rape activists and activities. Here she get attention, she didn’t get from Randall.16) In next two years Jackie gets obsessed with anti-rape activism. Her story of that night gets newer and newer juicy details.17) Two years later, Rolling Stone femipropagandist Sabrina Rubin Ederly is combing campuses nationwide to find THE perfect person for “campus rape culture awareness poster girl”.18) Jackie and Sabrina meet.19) Sabrina interviews Jackie, is too impressed to check the facts and runs the story to the printing presses.20) Zombie apocalypse breaks out.